and prepare a strong message in support of agency and community partnerships. It must be clear to everyone that the agency and community-based partnership approach is not just a passing fad but is in fact, the best way of doing business. In general, it is an acceptable practice to welcome community partners to the table to initiate the delivery of a required service for a family, but it is quite another level of practice to welcome community partners to the table to share cultural insights, improve decision-making, and provide advocacy and support for families. Absent of adequate support and an agency atmosphere that educates, informs, and encourages staff to shift their practice to welcome and include community partners, community can be seen as interfering outsiders as opposed to welcome resources.
(Slide 100) The ability to engage in open and honest dialogue, while remaining
committed to a mutual goal is pivotal to the process of shifting from individual case management to a community-based approach. The agency Director and the entire administrative staff must be supportive and create an atmosphere that supports an ability to hear the community’s perceptions of the child welfare agency without becoming defensive and/or attempting to justify past practices that may have contributed to a poor agency reputation.
(Slide 101) The cultural brokers who were interviewed stressed the importance
includes the ability to have difficult conversations around race, cultural misunderstandings, and disparities in the delivery of child welfare services. Social workers who were interviewed during the course of the study also recognized the need to have cultural insights and improved communications with families. Social workers viewed cultural brokers as culturally aware members of the family’s community and ethnic group and expected brokers to serve as mediators between the family and the child welfare system. The social workers also expected the brokers would facilitate family understanding and communication and engage in conflict resolution. Social workers who were interviewed also recognized the importance of being open to differences of opinions
Authentic, honest conversations between the child welfare agency and community are essential to the building of trust and the establishment of lasting relationships. Child welfare staff must be able to hear the stories of frustration and anger from biological parents, relatives, care providers, and friends and maintain an ability to remain focused on the big picture—“better outcomes for the families.” The brokers repeatedly expressed the fact that their commitment to improving outcomes for African American families and other families within their community has kept them at the table despite the numerous challenges they have faced. Establishing and maintaining agency and community partnerships is not an easy task and can be the most difficult for child welfare staff to achieve due to the necessary shift from individual practice to shared decision-making—the hallmark of true partnering.
As the agency tried to support the work of brokers, social workers found policy changes difficult and blamed the brokers for these changes, which fueled more animosity toward brokers. Their lack of organizational preparation and readiness may have been a contributing factor to social workers’ perceptions that brokers were not knowledgeable about the child welfare system or their role as social workers. Some of this criticism may be warranted, as large, complex systems working to address multifaceted social problems attached to many of these families are difficult to grasp and comprehend for most people, even for persons working in these systems.
DCFS leadership also offered insight regarding the perceived lack of organizational preparation and readiness for cultural brokering. They viewed the new partnership with the 06 Collaborative as fluid and evolutionary. As the community cited their desire to pursue cultural brokering as a way to address disproportionality, they supported the concept despite its vague meaning early on. Their lack of organization preparation was almost intentional and a risk that leadership was willing to take, because they wanted to develop culture brokering jointly with the African American community. From the leadership’s perspective it was the evolutionary journey with the community and the lessons learned along the way that helped bring meaning and clarity to cultural brokering and slowly advance better acceptance by staff. They acknowledged the early difficulties cited by brokers, but believed it helped develop trust and confidence with the community, which were critical for work on disproportionality and disparities in their county.
Both the cultural brokers and social workers expressed frustrations about the ambiguity and ongoing evolutionary nature of the cultural broker role. It is important to recognize that due to the individual needs of each community and the specific reform efforts or circumstances the community and child welfare partnerships are attempting to target, this work will more likely than not be evolutionary. This evolutionary process includes constant feedback and evaluation involving ongoing communication to make sure that the institutional nature of child welfare work does not contaminate the passion and commitment that initially inspired the community to partner with the child welfare agency. Child welfare agencies have a long-standing history of desire for community partnerships, but typically expect the community to fit into their vision for protection and safety as opposed to embracing what the community might envision as safety and well- being for the children and families in their communities. “True partnering can only begin when the internal agency culture has changed to a more open atmosphere built upon the beliefs of team building and shared decision making in order to improve the outcomes for children and families” (Ali et al., 2003, p. 45). As partnering and team building occurs, community leader-agency staff communications will deepen, effective problem solving and conflict management will occur, and an atmosphere that supports shared decision-making will evolve.
KEY FINDINGS
Characteristics of Effective Agency-Broker Partnerships
Cultural brokers identified several prerequisites for an agency to establish effective partnerships with cultural brokers:
• Open-mindedness reflected in the form of acceptance and mutual understanding, new ideas about serving families, and willingness to learn;
• (Slide 102) A conducive agency climate characterized by respect, tolerance, patience, humility, flexibility, an awareness or concern about disproportionality, a willingness to change, and appreciation of the cultural brokers;
• Willingness to share work by facilitating entry of brokers into the agency, developing social worker-cultural broker roles, increased communication with and acceptance of paraprofessionals;
• (Slide 103) Open and honest relationships that generate trust over time, being aware and open to personal biases and epitomized by “a sense of we;”
• Administrative leaders who are committed to addressing disproportionality are “ready to work,” establish policies for access to client information, and offer adequate training and preparations to staff. This latter point is essential so the cultural brokers are perceived as “as (an) advocate and not (a) bully.”
Challenges
Cultural brokers faced a number of challenges, primarily at the agency and social worker levels, despite agency leadership support and endorsement. Cultural brokers reported difficulties with being accepted and in gaining trust with agency personnel. They were viewed as interfering and as outsiders who were greeted with a “who do you think you are?” attitude, rather than community partners working together for the safety and well-being of children. They attributed these challenges to poor implementation of the cultural broker approach, role ambiguity, and inadequate introduction of the cultural brokers to the agency personnel. These circumstances at times provoked animosity and hostility toward the brokers among social workers.
Brokers encountered social workers who questioned their involvement with families and complained the cultural brokers told them what to do. Social workers blamed them for policy changes that allowed them to work with DCFS families. Cultural brokers were the subjects of agency rumors, misperceptions, and their presence initially
caused dissention in the social work ranks. In order to cope with these challenges, the brokers strove to maintain their perspective on what was occurring around them. They tried “to understand the social workers’ story” (perspectives), look beyond characters and perceptions, and keep “the spirit of the big picture” (i.e., addressing family needs).
Finally, cultural brokers reported that they were challenged by the families that they were assigned—families with multiple and complex needs who had been in the child welfare system for years. They felt in some of these situations it was too late for them to make a difference.
The social workers reported a wide range of challenges they faced while working with cultural brokers. Some responses indicated that the worker and broker need to be “on the same page” and open to differences of ideas and opinions. Taking things personally, logistical issues, staying focused, and communication were also cited as challenges by the social workers.
Suggestions for Improvements in the Cultural Broker Approach
Cultural brokers offered advice that fell into three categories—preparing for cultural brokering, the value of culture brokers, and the benefits of being a broker.
They urged aspiring brokers to prepare for the realities of cultural brokering. There are families who are not ready for change. One broker explained, “Children only have one chance. You have to get where the family is, not where you are.” The misery and despair is overwhelming and “the system is not fair.” Cultural brokers need to be properly staffed and have access to resources “otherwise [they] are just a Band-Aid.”
They suggested that the agency focus on the need for training social workers about working with cultural brokers. Brokering is a form of shared accountability for all parties involved; families, social workers, agency, and cultural brokers alike. It’s important to “not let egos get in the way” and to constantly remember that “the cause is bigger than our differences.”
Social workers were asked to offer suggestions on how to improve the cultural broker experience. Their most common response was social worker training. Understanding of broker roles and improving effective communication was also cited. A few workers indicated they would not change anything about the cultural broker experience. The majority of social worker responses indicated that the cultural brokers were helpful and a resource to families and the worker, and they found cultural brokering to be a positive experience. Only a few thought the experience was negative.
The majority of parents interviewed suggested the cultural broker experience could be improved if they entered the case earlier, had more education and skills to do their job more effectively, or offered more involvement and support. One parent stated they needed “education with the Welfare and Institutions Code. A lot of women get struck in the system because we don’t know our rights and the whole process.”
IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS FOR CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE (Slide 104)
In anticipation that other communities will adopt cultural brokering, lessons learned from Fresno County’s experience should be useful. One major consideration is whether child welfare agencies should engage in some form of organizational preparedness and readiness in anticipation of cultural brokering. Fresno DCFS made
modest efforts at preparedness as a matter of preference that was based on their philosophy and their guiding principles of community engagement. However, given some of the brokers’ comments, there is reason to believe that higher levels of agency preparedness might be beneficial to implementation. For example, agencies should consider how brokers are introduced to the agency staff, which could take the form of specialized training especially with case-carrying staff. Communication to all agency staff about cultural brokering as a strategy for community engagement is also important.
For child welfare agencies and practitioners wishing to adopt community-based practices, cultural brokering does offer an avenue for inclusion of the African American community in child welfare decisions regarding families and their children. Cultural brokering can lead to greater transparency in child welfare practice and more honesty about the reasons disproportionality and disparity exist. Cultural brokering can create greater trust, understanding, and honest communication between the community and the child welfare agency if there is real commitment to address disproportionality and disparities. At least in Fresno County, sustained efforts at community engagement and cultural brokering has allowed the community and agency to work together to establish concrete objectives and discuss other strategies for addressing disproportionality and disparities. This work is not without its ongoing conflicts and disagreements, but there remains a commitment to further this work for the safety, permanence, and well-being of African American children.
(Slide 105) In Fresno, California, African American community members,
wrongs done by the child welfare system, which always seemed to know best and operated with relative autonomy and perceived impunity outside of the community. Currently, Fresno County is engaged in changing the course of the system by bridging
the gap between provider and family cultural systems. Much to their credit, they are
working productively with institutions that have not always understood the African American community’s needs and perceptions for protecting their children and strengthening the well-being of their families. In the words of DCFS leadership and cultural brokers, theirs is a vision of fairness, justice, and a call for child welfare institutions to “do the right thing.”
Activity V-1
Purpose: Participants will gain an understanding of the importance of transparency
in child welfare practice especially when working with community representatives. Participants will also gain a greater understanding of the need to establish and maintain open and honest communications with community members who desire to partner with child welfare staff in an effort to address issues such as the disproportionality and disparities in child welfare.
Instructions: It is suggested that participants engage in an exercise that utilizes a
case scenario that requires participants to engage in difficult conversations that require open and honest communications with community partners as well as transparent case practices. The scenario should be representative of actual case decision-making practices and institutional factors specific to the participants’ respective agencies/ counties.
Process
specific exercises and case scenarios that will realistically reflect issues that require difficult conversations and transparency around case practices. This process will support the acquisition of desired skills and knowledge and provide opportunities for participants to engage in open and honest discussions around sensitive issues.